(first posted 10/25/2011) I didn’t realize I had another Buick-Olds mid market smackdown hiding in my photo collection. And due to some Mopar outcries, I’ll throw in the previously-covered crazy-faced 1962 Chrysler 300 in the mix. “Which would do in sixty-two?” is the question for you.

This time the roles are a bit reversed: Oldsmobile survived the collapse of the middle of the market due to the Eisenhower recession better than Buick, and for 1962 at least, maintained a marginal lead over its family rival from Flint.

However, at nearly 400,000 cars sold, Buick was a long way from the “dismal” 250K range they sold in the 1959-60 season. Still burned by a few quality lapses from their sprint to number three in production between 1954 and 1956, Buick was still trying to find the playbook that would answer legitimately the question “Wouldn’t you really rather have a Buick?”

Chrysler was making steady gains by standing proudly on the grave of DeSoto. However, selling fewer Chryslers than GM could send Cadillacs out the door pointed out that between worries about build quality and some rather bizarre styling was still hurting the prestige normally associated with Chrysler. Nor did the Newport touting a base price of under $3,000 help (roughly just over $22,000 today). That would be the first salvo of a war that continues to this day with the overlapping of Dodge and Chrysler sedans.

The two GM cars featured a further rationalization of the themes introduced on the 1961 B and C body cars. For the Buick that mean those delightfully pointed fenders up front were shaved down, revealing a set of rather wide eyes.

For the Olds that meant the skeg fins on the chin of the Oldsmobile Family face went away, along with the “Hollywood Sign” presentation of the brand name that had been an off & on theme at least since the 1955 model year. The Olds also sprouted, for a lack of better way of describing it, a double chin.

And then there’s the Crazy Chrysler, in all of the Exner-fueled lunacy that was having its last flare in 1962. Not much changed on the oddly familiar face of the Chryslers, so the more than 30,000 car production increase was all the more remarkable considering this face was one of the last few exuberant traces of the 1950s on the market.

Maybe it was the dramatic rationalization out back on the Chrysler that helped? Finally free of fins for 1962, but more bulbous than a Chrysler hind quarter dared to be since 1955.

Olds decided to harken back to 1959 with the tail lamp shape, but instead of mounting it at the end of a rocket tube-like blob on top of the rear fenders with little finlets on top, it was integrated into the rear panel. Ironically, all Oldsmobiles would unabashedly embrace crisp blade like fins running front to rear in 1963, a good six years after most of the industry went crazy for them.

The Buick has what I’ve derisively called the Buick Blob: a rather generic rectangle of red or/and white lens that, given time, would take over the whole rump of Buick cars, especially the upper tier Electra. It’s still a curse that the current LaCrosse tries to hide with a swath of chrome. Ironically, like Oldsmobile, 1963 would prove a brief reprieve with the return of a chrome covered and fin capped tail lamp assembly before the blob took over again in 1964.

It’s hard to decide on who was the engine winner this year however. If we start at the bottom of the totem pole, the Olds 2 barrel 394 has the 265hp 361 B-block available in a Windsor beat, and ties the 401 2 barrel available in a LeSabre.

But the problem with directly comparing our photo cars arises in their engine compartments. The Chrysler 300 started with a 305hp 383 V8, but you could check off boxes all the way to the 413 V8.

That leaves the most Masculine Buick (a 325hp 401 equipped Invicta or Wildcat) and Oldsmobile (the ultra expensive Starfire with 345hp) a little bit behind.

Neither of the GM cars could match the brute force of any full-tilt engine optioned Chrysler, but in the normal comparison of what sold most (the base powerplant in all mid level series) they’re a more competitive. Each of them properly tuned and equipped with the right engine and axle ratios could see north of 120mph and could dash to 60 in a little less (or a lot less) than 9 seconds. This in a period where your typical 283 equipped Impala took 13 or more seconds doing so through a Powerglide.

The Roto-HydraMatic, in it’s 2nd season could only hamstring the 394 so much, especially in one of the more powerful combinations.

Nor would a Wildcat/Invicta level 401 have anything to feel bad about, despite the latest evolution of the rather dreary update of the Dynaflow concept; now in marketing speak called Twin Turbine.

But General Motors was designing the Turbo Hydramatic during this period to once and for all match the excellent Torqueflite automatic, which combined smooth operation with swiftness. Between the great Mopar engines and the legendary Torqueflite, you have to give the powertrain crown to the Chrysler.

And the prowess of the Chrysler extends to the superior torsion bar front suspension that provided better roadability than either of the GM cars could hope for on four soggy coil springs. All Mopar offerings were known for their great handling. Perhaps the only GM car known for being responsive to input controls in 1962 was the Corvair, for better or worse.

But the “All Mopar offerings were great at actual driving” brings up a sore point: Why trade up from a Dodge if a Polara or Custom 880 was just as good. And arguably (and accidentally) the 880 was the best looking offering from Highland Park in 1962.

Then again, you could say why buy an 88 or LeSabre/Invicta when a Bonneville still kept the superior four-speed HydraMatic with lush appointments and a ready to party 389 V8. All with arguably the best styling from General Motors in 1962.

And before I end up splitting the vote far too many ways:

I open the debate, and hand all of you $3,500 in 1962 money. Some of you might have a Standard Catalog of American Cars and can find the cost of options and the sort. Create your ideal family coupe, convertible or sedan for 1962.

Well, in ’62, the “square”steering wheel only came on the Imperials.
I think I would spend my 3500 dollars on the Chrysler. i absolutely love the futuristic dash with the globe over the speedo, and the push button transmission!

You all know that I am a Mopar guy deep down, so I would happily take the budget and plunk it down on a sport series 300 with a 383 and the pushbutton Torqueflite. How I wish this option were available today!. The oddball canted headlights are not my favorite, but I have always loved the rest of the car. The fabulous mechanicals, the tight unibody and the overall styling. Truthfully, I have always wanted one of these. All of the flair and the great chassis of my 59 Fury but with a decent body. I. Love. Pushbuttons.

I will admit to a soft spot for the 62 Buick. There were a couple of these around in my childhood. I remember riding in the back seat of a yellow LeSabre convertible that we had for a weekend when a guy at my Dad’s work borrowed our station wagon. Also a family friend had a LeSabre 4 door in that metallic pink that GM offered that year. I have often wondered how an old WWII bomber pilot wound up with a pink Buick. He was married, so that was probably it. So, the Buick would be my second choice with the big nailhead and the Twin Turbine Dynaflow. I always liked the taillights, and this was one of the first cars I could reliably identify as a little kid.

I have little love for the 62 Oldsmobile (although I love the 61 and 63-64). The front end looks like an electric shaver. The 394 Rocket was one of the great engines, but the Roto Hydramatic, not so much. Not much here to outweigh the so-so transmission and that awful X frame. Like Laurence, I would easily take a Bonneville over this one.

I didn’t realize my prejudice for the Bonneville showed so readily. Oops. The only reason it wasn’t thrown in here as a complete comparison model (along with the Custom 880) is I haven’t seen one in a while.

But I’d take either of those Bonnevilles in the ad above. Drool.

For the 3 choices of the article, I’m going to throw a curveball and say the Chrysler 300. The gauge cluster from outerspace, the next rung up 383 (335hp, right?) 4 door hardtop in black please. The Buick has always been too staid for me, and I wouldn’t turn down Olds, it is just hard to justify it over the prettier Pontiac though.

In 1972, I drove my dad’s old 1962 Buick Le Sabre to high school and to my friend’s house. It died in 1973. Dad bought a 1969 Mustang in 1971, with a 351 cubic inch engine. I got the hand-me-down and I was glad of it. Trouble was we lived in a high-priced community and the police used to pull me over routinely to check me out, to make sure I was local and not robbing houses or selling drugs or something. That is always how I will remember the 1962 Buick Le Sabre. A crappy car that the city police were suspicious of, producing my driver license to show that I had a local address.

Ugh. I should have made that a “No Full Sizers from the Low Priced 3” rule.

I’ll Scream *POWERGLIDE* and shake my fist and move on. Plus, the 1962 Chevrolet looks inbred in the face to me. If I had to choose among the low priced 3 I think a Fury would have been my bet in 1962.

geeber

Posted October 25, 2011 at 2:43 PM

I’d take a Galaxie 500 XL two-door hardtop for 1962, although it could really use a semi-fastback style roofline like the one used on the 63 1/2 Galaxie.

Zackman

Posted October 26, 2011 at 6:46 AM

OK, OK, then. Make mine the Chysler, 2 door hardtop, please. I really want a square steering wheel, after all! My aunt drove one – 2 door H/T Dodge, white w/blue interior. Man, did this 11-year-old kid feel cool when riding with her in that car! At the time, I had never seen anything quite like it. Beautiful!

At that time, dad was still driving a worn-out gray ’53 Dodge that he never should’ve bought in the first place when his ’50 Plymouth rusted to death and was no longer safe to drive – the front seat bracket stuck through the floor! Mom almost shot him for bringing that car home when he and I happened by our local Plymouth dealer one day!

So, if not the bottom 3, make mine a Chrysler all the way! May as well be white w/blue interior, too! Just make sure it was built on a Wednesday.

62 Chrysler all the way–always liked the “plucked chicken” look, once they shaved off those bizarre fins from the 61. The Dodge 880 is nice too, but I prefer the 63 with the revised front–it’s not as ‘droopy” looking as the 62 (which was a carryover from 61). Of the others, I like the Buick. My college roommate in the late 70’s had a 63 Wildcat with the 401 and three-on-the tree. Even at 15 years old, that car would MOVE (once you got it into second)! I saw an indicated 90 mph in that car and it had plenty left. Of course now I’m thinking “90 mph, with DRUM brakes–were you nuts!!?? Ahhh, youth….

I don’t have pricing in front of me, but I’m certainly partial to the Chrysler. Make mine a 300H with the 413 with dual 4-bbls on the optional ram induction “octopus” intake manifold, bucket seats and a floor-shift console. I love the styling of this car, especially the canted headlights.

I’d prefer it not shorn of its fins though, so I’d be even happier if I could find a left-over ’61 300G still for sale on the dealer’s lot. Additionally, the ’61 got the long-ram induction intake manifolds as standard equipment.

If it weren’t for the $3500 budget, I’d shoot for a 62 Imperial. They were more like $7000 though.

I think $3500 would be kind of hard in all of these cars cases if you wanted more than Power Steering, Brakes, AM radio and their Automatic on offer. More realistically outfitted like that any of these 3 went closer to $3,800 out the door.

I remember a Car Life Magazine test from an Oldsmobile 1955-63 book that tested a Ninety Eight that I *think* was $5,000 on the nose with every conceivable option (power seats, A/C). I can’t remember what the Dynamic 88 sedan they tested went for in that same book but I think it was around $3,400 for a Hydramatic/PB/PS but no whitewalls car.

@jp: Yeah, I figured that it would break the bank. After I entered my comment, I looked back through the larticle and saw that Laurence stated that the base price on a Newport was close to $3k, so a Newport optioned-up with a 413 would probably hit the budget ceiling right there. I’d certainly take the 300G trade-in though.

I’d also be dubious about the long-ram induction system for street driving, unless you live in Nevada or Arizona. Owners I’ve talked to have noted that the long-ram engines are not at all happy with cold weather until they’re thoroughly warmed up — until the runners are warm, some of the fuel in the intake charge will actually start condensing on the inner walls, and either stay there (not helpful) or trickle down to the intake valves as liquid (also not helpful). They said that in hot weather, it’s great, but trying to keep the engine running on a cold, damp morning is a PITA.

@ but trying to keep the engine running on a cold, damp morning is a PITA.

But wasn’t that like every other Chrysler product of the era (1950s-70s)? Every one of mine was that way. From 30-50 degrees F on a high humidity day, and from the time the choke wanted to come off until the car was fully warmed up, they never wanted to idle. I read somewhere that they had a tendency to build ice around the throttle plates which choked off airflow until the carb warmed enough. And if the inside of your distributor got damp, you were cooked if you had not remembered to spray some WD40 or CRC inside the distributor cap.

I’ve never heard about that problem with the ram manifolds, but it makes sense. I read that some of the 1962+ “short rams” were water heated instead of exhaust heated which may have helped during warmup.

Seriously, if I was living in 1962, I would probably buy a used 1960 NYer hardtop wagon as a reliable daily driver that’s still pretty cool, and I’d be building hot rods as summer fun cars.

The short rams also didn’t have as much surface area, which probably helped in that regard.

The trade-off was that the long rams would be more useful in around-town driving, because the longer runners puts the resonance supercharging effect at lower speeds; for the long-ram engine, I think you got the peak at around 2,800 rpm. Shorter runners produce the same effect higher up the rev band, helpful for racing, but not as beneficial in mid-range passing.

pfsm

Posted October 25, 2011 at 3:15 PM

The 300 club and WPC (Walter P. Chrysler) club had a joint meeting at Lake Tahoe one year. All the 300 guys were bitching about how many problems they were having with the running of their cars at that altitude. My little 318 2-barrel ’58 Plymouth, other than a very slight power loss, was unaffected.

If you needed a back seat, though, the Avanti wouldn’t be high on the list. (I’ve ridden in the back seat of an Avanti — it’s not quite as cramped as some Japanese 2+2s of the eighties and nineties, but it’s not exactly business class accommodations, either.)

Chrysler 300 all the way. Both back then (when I was 12 and hanging around in dad’s dealership after the Tuesday piano lesson), and now. While I felt the ’62 Chevrolet and Pontiac were attractive, the upper three models in GM’s line didn’t turn me on in the slightest.

I’d go with the Olds. Its version of the Roto-Hydramatic transmission was beefed up over the one Pontiac used, and Olds, if I recall correctly, never used a “pure” X-frame. The frames on Oldsmobiles always had side members. The Rocket V-8 was equal to the Mopar engines, and it had that distinctive Olds “rumble.”

I like the styling – which puts me in the minority here – and the Olds’ build quality was better than Chrysler’s, as was the interior. Chrysler styling, even without the fins, screams, “Suddenly it’s 1960.” Which, in 1962, was not a good thing.

The Buick does nothing for me…Buick styling would be much improved for 1963. Oldsmobile was okay for 1963, but the 1964 model is bland and undistinguished. At least there was a handsome new F-85/Cutlass for 1964, which is better looking than any 1964 88 or Ninety-Eight. Both Buick and Olds really hit their styling stride in the intermediate and full-size lines in 1965.

The Chrysler had the best transmission, and the suspension tuning was tighter, but one bought these cars for cruising down Main Street or on the newly built interstate highways. None of them would be very good on a winding back road. And Chrysler’s “full-time” power steering was definitely not the best.

One reason Chrysler scored a big sales gain in 1962 was because the full-size Dodge and Plymouth were downsized with very radical, odd styling. Customers were put off by the size and styling of the new Plymouth and Dodge. The aggressively priced Newport enabled Mopar loyalists to stay with Chrysler, and probably poached a fair number of sales from that year’s new Plymouth, given that they both shared the same showroom. I’m sure that more than a few Chrysler-Plymouth dealers quickly showed the Newport to Plymouth owners who were ready to walk when they caught the first glimpse of that year’s Fury and Belvedere.

Hmmm. I wasn’t even born until the end of 1962… My family did own a 1962 Fairlane 500, but my father was not thrilled with it, not like the 1957 Fairlane 500. But, to be fair, the ’57 had the 312 cid Thunderbird motor, the ’62 had the 260 cid small block…

My great Uncle (who sponsored us in this country) had a 1962 Studebaker Lark VIII, in that pewter like color, with a similarly colored interior. I don’t remember much about him or the car, as he died when I was 6 and the car was sold off not long after…

Since I’m a cheap b*st*rd, but like oddball cars, here’s what I’d spend the booty on: a 1962 Studebaker Gran Turismo, with 4 speed manual transmission, Twin Traction rear end and a FM radio.

If we were talking my money, it would probably be something more like a Meteor (love the canted fins), or a Pontiac Tempest or a Lark (with Skybolt six!)…

EDIT: I did a little Google search for the price of a 1962 Gran Turismo Hawk, but couldn’t find one. I did find one for a 1963, it listed at $3800.00. I wonder if I could talk them down a little to about $3500. Or maybe that Lark VI was more accurate than I thought!

This in one of the few times where the Olds comes close to the Buick for me, not so much because the Olds offering is so great, but because the Buick offering is so weak. I agree with LAx that 62 was a low point in styling.

As far as Chrysler it wouldn’t even be on the radar, the only thing I give it as superior is the 727, far and away the best trans on the market at that time, and one of the best of all time.

As far as their superior handling due to torsion bar suspension that is a bunch of hooey. Look at some of the period reviews in Pop Sci and you’ll find that in their opinion the Mopar torsion bar products were often mid pack in the handling dept and rarely miles ahead of the competitors like so many claim today.

Fact is a torsion bar is just a coil spring that hasn’t been finished yet. The torsion bar set up was just a way for Chrysler to be able to make uni-body cars with the tech of the time. The torsion bar allowed them to shift where some of the weight carried by the front wheels was distributed to the structure. That way they didn’t have to figure out how to make the front structure strong enough to carry all that weight on it’s own. The geometry, spring, shock and bushing rates, have much more to do with handling prowess than coils vs torsion bar. The “torsion bars provide superior handling vs coils” was all just marketing.

Don’t get me wrong I don’t have anything against torsion bar IFS, in fact I own one, and it even has a TF 727 sitting between the torsion bars. It does though have a full frame and carries a Man on the tractor badge, not a Pentastar.

+!. In fact, one of the few really tangible advantages the torsion bars provided was that the spring preload could be adjusted at the factory to compensate for different front end weights, so Chrysler (unlike, say, Chevy) didn’t have to stock a bunch of different coils with slightly different rates to account for six vs. V8, small block vs. big block, A/C vs. non-AC, etc. I suppose that’s useful, but not exactly glamorous. That Mopars tended to be a little stiffer was because the spring rates were higher, not because of the springing medium.

With torsion bars you don’t really adjust the pre-load as much as adjust the location of the “seat” to adjust the height. Yes that does allow you to adjust cars with differing weights to have the same ride height with the same “spring”. I bet there were still a couple of options for many of the cars over the years but not as many as you’d see at GM. Heck even IH offered 2 different sets of bars when my Travelall was built, of course they were a line item option or part of the tow package and not tied to actual vehicle weight.

Torsion bars can also allow for more room in the engine compartment by pushing the upper control arms down and out. Neither of which is particularly good for suspension geometry.

So I see three good points as why it was a good fit for the large uni-body Mopars. 1. moving load from the front of the structure to the mid section. 2. room for wide engines. 3. cut down the number of different spring rates needed.

There are also nice when you have to get driving axles to the knuckle. There are quite a few modern trucks and suv using them for that reason.

I’d forgotten Olds had the double chin ((oo #### oo)), isn’t that similar to the later 1967 Thunderbird, only with exposed headlights?

$3,500 would have bought a pretty nice Bonneville Convertible ideally with 8 lugnut wheels and rear fender skirts. A first year Grand Prix would be my choice if a coupe is desired.

Now If we are including what we would do today, Well $3500 would go a long way toward a 59 Cadillac Convertible in 1962, would it not?

OR better yet a 1960… those are actually much better looking to my eyes.

But Back to 62, I suppose there are charms of individuality that make some of the Plucked chicken looks of Chrysler better looking in retrospect.

I’d kind of like a downsized Dodge Convertible from 1962, These must be rare as heck by now. I can’t even recall the model names of them now, Coronet? Polara?

It wasn’t until the 1965 Monaco series that I ever craved a Dodge, then it was a Monaco, Though I always Preffered the 64 Dodge Square Trio of Taillights to the 64 Impalas, in hindsight it is more comparible to the 61 Chevy’… OK Enough Rambling on For now. Must STAY on topic. Sorry gang.

NOTE; (LOL))I added this last comment of mine, before reading the comments in the last hour or two by others, who mentioned AS I did, The Glamour Birds FRont End, reminiscent of the 62 Olds, (How funny that we sometimes think so alike!) …

as well as (high five) having considered the downsized 62 Dodges at roughly the same time.

I TOTALLY get such a kick at knowing of , and reading that you commenters understand some of the things I say, and Best Of all not only care, but Must be glad to have others get a kick out of the same things we do.

In my day to day life I rarely come across people who enjoy talking about American Cars much at all, beyond the usual trashing of both new and old.

It is good to know ,
I’m not alone in my love of the annual changes Automakers did to fine tune their cars, look and style, as well as equipment, for the ever changing marketplace until the 80s, or in rare cases the 90s.

If I’d been born 25 years earlier, I’d be a Chrysler man. Superior engineering, especially those torsion bars. And superior styling to my taste. I like the slanted quads, and the way the line from wheel well top swings down defining the parking lights.

Our doctor had a ’62 Buick. Boring. I do agree the ’62s were pretty dull in general. Except the nightmare Dodge Polara.

Laurence, I love your “Hollywood Sign” term for the brand name spelled out, as opposed to a logo badge. It was fairly common in the sixties, then died out. But I don’t see the brand presentation difference between the ’61 and ’62 Olds.

The 61’s (both the fullsizers and the F-85/Cutlass) had “oldsmobile” spelled out under a fall away waterfall grille pattern. For ’62 it was replaced with the grid on the 88/98’s and that big “starburst” on the Starfire.

I can’t remember each year they did it, but I remember it being a commonality with the ’55 I covered a few weeks back.

Interesting, Google Images happened to show me the ’61 Olds 98, which didn’t have the letters in the grille like the other ’61 Olds’ did. So “Hollywood Sign” is when the letters stand alone in a grille. ’62 Rambler did that too. I like it, thanks.

Maybe it was the 88’s only on the full size cars. The Starfire had a maroon oval in the place of the lettering, I guess the Ninety Eight did too. Interesting little details that made each model different?

MikePDX

Posted October 25, 2011 at 12:53 PM

I think details like that are fascinating.

LAx

Posted October 25, 2011 at 3:02 PM

So do I. I really miss the different little quirks that could identify each model.

Much as I love the ’62 Chrysler 300 I’d have to go with Pontiac just for that one year. My grandmother had a ’62 Pontiac Catalina 2 dr ht, I think it was a 326 with the 4 speed HydroMatic in a glamorous metallic light blue with matching vinyl/cloth interior. That car always made me smile just looking at it, and it had pretty good power too. Though having my choice from new-in-’62 I think the 389-powered Bonneville version would be awfully hard impossible to resist…

Then again the ’62 300…

I guess it will depend on my mood when we get there.

So will this be a mandatory roundtrip, or do we get to stay in 1962 if we want?

Think twice before wanting to stay in 1962. Liberation hadn’t hit yet, and women said “no” a lot quicker (and a lot more automatically) back then. Life didn’t start getting truly interesting until about 1964/65 in the big cities, 1968/69 in the small towns.

Yes, well if we’re nitpicking then how about the inconvenience of being a 51 y.o. lady with ID that says I was born in ’59 — in the year 1962? And yes, the pre-sexual revolution USA was a much bigger bummer for us… Either you were a “proper young lady” or you risked getting shipped off to the looney bin. Though we old ladies always could get away with more…

But the cars sure were cool, a dollar was a dollar, and the thinner population was really nice. 🙂

Last time you gave us a choice I went the wrong way so this time Ill go with the Chrysler 2 doors 383 push buttons if I cant get a 4 speed I can cope with slanted lights and no fins at least its unitary with easy adjustable torsion front end.

I think How Stuff Works says in it’s piece on the Custom 880 that what the actual Dodge looked like was what a proposed last minute stopgap 1962 DeSoto would have looked like.

They already had the stampings and such worked out, so when the Dart/Polara warthogs landed with a thud it was relatively easy to get the Custom 880 to market, inhabiting the same $500 spread between a Polara and a Saratoga/300 that DeSotos lived in during 1960.

I’d take a Custom 880 convertible, red with red interior. Very rare, with only 684 built in ’62. Now if there was no price ceiling, I’d have to go with an Imperial Crown convertible, sage green iridescent with white leather!

I had a 1962 Newport 2-door hardtop with the floor-shift 3-speed, manual steering and brakes. The 361 engine was, I think, the easiest-starting Mopar I ever owned, always ran well, and had plenty of power. Of course I liked the way the car handled too. So I think a plain 300 2-door hardtop, red on red, with the 383 4-barrel and 4-speed would do me just fine.

Of the 3 featured cars, I’d go with the Olds, despite the “double chin.” My late aunt bought a new ’61 Dynamic 88 in the fall of ’60 after her batwing ’59 Chevy was stolen and wrecked by teenagers in Wildwood, NJ. Loved riding around in the back seat of that bubble top with the newest car in town. Geeber is right in that the Olds did not have the narrow X-frame used by Buick, Chevy, and Caddy. There were definitely sidemembers below the rocker panels.

The ’62 Buick is rather homely, especially compared to the lovely ’61 model. I was never a Mopar fan, but I do like the look of the ’62 Chryslers. Although not allowed under Laurence’s rules, I have to give a shout-out to the ’62 Chevy Bel Air 2-door bubble top, the last sporty Bel Air. (After that, they were relegated to yeoman duty as sedans and wagons – we had a very plain ’67 2-door, in which I learned to drive.)

Also, my uncle had a ’62 Catalina 4-door sedan, bought used. Sharp-looking car, even in white. I drove it a few times, but distinctly remember it spending long stints at an indie transmission repair shop — must have been that pesky Roto-Hydramatic!

And I can vouch that torsion bars in and of themselves do NOT provide superior handling. I have them in my ’98 Nissan Frontier 2wd!

One thing I think you have to do in this case is put yourself in the mindset of the time. Sure, we pine for those old ’57 Chevys and early letter-series 300’s but in 1962 they were just old cars. In a time when people routinely traded in cars every two years, a five-year-old car was a clunker. That said, anything with fins was certainly starting to look old by then.

Still, a bargain-priced ’61 300G trade-in or demo would have been hard to pass up, old-looking fins or not. Restricting choices to ’62 model year cars would have had me going Pontiac. Best combo of looks, performance and value.

Funny you should mention that. I was in high school in the early 1970s…and there were PLENTY of Tri-Fives around; some well-cared for, almost restored (true restoration back then was a rare and spendy thing) and some beat to snot and rusted out…typical (for the time) kids’ cars.

But there were almost NO 1957 Fords around. Zip, zero, nada. It was a truly rare sighting to get a glimpse of those bug-eyes and tailfins. And even as a kid, I was watching…before my old man bought his 1962 Rambler, he had a 1957 Country Squire wagon. I had vague recollections of it, with its painted-metal dash (that I was busy messing up with a jar of jelly when I was left alone in the car for a few minutes) and there’s family photos of toddler me in front of it.

The Ford of that year….was crap. No other way to describe it. Ford execs openly admitted it to authors years later; and like most crapmobiles, the car quickly disappeared. It never survived long enough to be old enough to have enthusiasts wash and wax one lovingly on Sundays; and, probably, even as a kid’s first car it wasn’t worth much. What kid wants a five-year-old rustbucket with build problems?

The Fords of that era are forgotten and lost; and the Tri-Fives have become timeless icons. Back in an era when the General knew what it was doing and was wildly successful as a result.

The same can be said for many years between 1955 & 1980, You generally see way more Survivor Chevrolet’s of a given year than Ford’s.

Did Rust get them? OR, Do people just love their Chevrolets more, so they collect them in higher numbers?

jpcavanaugh

Posted October 26, 2011 at 7:54 AM

My vote: critical mass. The Chevy was basically sound, parts were everywhere and they became sort of the standard for an older car kept on the road. This is for the same reason that old Fords were everywhere up through the 1950s – the flathead Ford had become the standard for old cars for a previous generation.
The Tri5s became the new standard partly because they were pretty good, and partly because everything else had such problems. The Ford Y block was nowhere near the engine of the SBC. After 1956, Fords bodies were terrible too. Mopar had the engines, but the 50s bodies (and general quality) were weak, and Plymouth never sold 1.5 million units a year. The Tri5s had the whole package for the teen looking for a car that was good looking and performed and could be cheaply and easily wrenched. Once the Chevys hit critical mass by the early 60s, there you had it. The early 70s GM pickups had bodies every bit as bad as 57 Fords or Plymouths, but because the mechanicals were so universal by this time, they remained the choice for the cheap beater pickup in the midwest.
Most of us gravitate towards what we already know, and most people know their SBCs pretty well.

geeber

Posted October 26, 2011 at 8:54 AM

I would agree with the critical mass theory, which meant that replacement parts were cheap and virtually everyone knew how to work on the vehicle.

I’ve noticed, that, when talking to many GM fans, “reliability” often doesn’t mean “It doesn’t ever break” (which is what it means to Honda and Toyota owners) but, “It’s cheap and easy to fix when something does go wrong.”

One thing I have noticed with Ford versus Chevrolet trucks since the early 1970s – the Chevrolet trucks are more likely to be used as personal use vehicles, or vehicles that are customized. Which means that they don’t get used as hard…the Ford trucks tend to be used as WORK trucks. Which means that they are beaten to death and then junked.

LAx

Posted October 27, 2011 at 11:29 AM

geeber – I like your relative reliability factor that GM fans cite, parts are plentiful, interchangeable…. “Easy to work on” … often said of V8s, Panthers in general also.

Thank you “American Graffiti”. If you look at the historical interest in cars, that’s a really good starting point to our current obsession with ‘cruising cars’, ‘hot rods’ and ‘full customs’.

I can remember being looked at really strangely for reading hot rod and (especially) custom magazines back in the 60’s – and that was the only crowd where old cars were desirable. If you were fixing up an antique car (say, something from the 30’s) you rebuilt it to the original factory specs and showed it at antique car shows . . . . . . . and keep your stinking hot rod away from our show, thank you very much.

Then that damned movie came out, and suddenly everyone was trying to live the high school years that they never had. And nobody could put together a 50’s Chevy without at least aftermarket wheels. Gotta look good at the Friday night cruise-in, you know.

Actually, cars did last more than 5 years back then, but typically not in the original owner’s hands, and they certainly didn’t hold up as well in looks or reliability. 100K miles was unusual though — I remember a feature article in Pop Sci or Pop Mech about a guy who explained how he saw his ’56 Chevy through 6 years and the magic 100,000-mile figure.

We kept our family cars 6 years, but we racked up only 5000 miles a year, because of short commutes, very short trips to shopping and such, and road trips only about every 3 years to nearby states (and sometimes within state).

I have to disagree though about the Tri-Fives. Having lived through the era, I can attest that they had already achieved classic status (although not called that at the time) by the 1963-65 time frame. The finned wonder cars were mostly heaps of iron ore by then!

I might be a bit on the young side to comment on the status of the Tri-Fives by the early 60’s, but, as an observer of the era from a historical sense the Tri-Fives were a complete package for hot rodders. Which is why I think they were saved from near extinction like other models.

You have the combination of a body/chassis that is roomy enough to be a family daily driver if necessary, and it can accommodate whatever you would want to put in there in terms of seats/no seats, A/C units, etc. The same with the motor, everything for a SBC is plug and play. If the SBC isn’t enough motivation, add a BBC! Plenty of room in the engine bay…

From my perspective, the other companies didn’t offer nor did they have the aftermarket support the Chevy (in particular, as opposed to the other GM divisions) had. I can see how they survived, just because of that kind of popularity.

You’re assuming that a 300G would even be available on the used car lot. I seem to remember that production of those was down to three figures, or close to it, for that year. As in, as long as you’re talking reality, 300G’s bloody well didn’t exist.

And yes, we have a willingness to consider a 3-5 year old used car today that didn’t really exist back then. In those days, to drive an older than three year old car was admission of personal failure. That only started to change in the 60’s.

Of these three, I’d go Buick all the way, for timelessness of design. Take a look at a ’72 LeSabre. The rear is incredibly similar to that ’62. The sculptural lines and creases on the sides of the ’72 body are also evocative of the ’62 with some early 50’s Buick themes mixed in. Jump forward another ten years and there aren’t as many directly corresponding lines but the time traveler from ’62 would recognize the ’82 LeSabre as a lineal descendant. On the other hand, Olds spent the sixties trying to decide whether it was a Cadillac clone or something else (the ’62 is “something else”), and not a single detail of a ’62 Olds can be found in a ’72 or ’82 example. And as for Chrysler, well, let’s not even get started.

The slightly bonkers spaceship look of the Chryslers has always appealed to my sense of weirdness, but my grandfather had a ’62 Olds 88 so I gotta go that way, though my personal preference would have been the 98 six-window hardtop sedan.

Of the three offered, and the sub- $4k budget, but not knowing exact prices, it would probably be the Olds 88 4-door “Holiday” (hardtop) well optioned, including A/C. These as “sporty” coupes or convertibles were a joke. They were near-luxury family boats.

’62 was a low point in styling (except Lincoln and Pontiac, above and below the target “class”). Olds looks best of the three to me. The Olds had a perimeter, not X frame that year. While the Mopar powertrain is superior, it was shared with cheaper cars. The Buick engine and trans were already too long in the tooth. I also remember the overly soft “seasick” Buick ride from personal experience.

Like the previous match-up between Olds and Buick posted here yesterday, it becomes a “toss-up” UNTIL you specify which engine….but more importantly, (to me anyway), which colors are available. But then when you add in the Chrysler, unless it’s a very plain/white with black interior, I’d definitely take the Chrysler. As a “runner-up”? The Buick. I’d look to the Olds mostly because the styling is a bit different and it has/had a better rep as a “sportier” car than a Buick.

I would have to take the Olds for personal reasons. My folks bought a new ’62 wagon and I have lots of fond memories of that car. We went on some pretty nice vacations in it, I drove it to get my license, I saw 100 for the first time behind its wheel, drove it to my first prom, rode with my Dad as he broke through snow drifts in it, and on and on. Dad traded it in on a new ’66 Galaxie and then four years later bought it back from our small town Ford dealer who had never sold it, as a second car. I was on my own by then and Dad rebuilt the engine and then it went on to another decade or so of vacations, etc.
My folks loved that car and it was their favorite, even though Dad was a Ford guy all his life.
My favorite Aunt and Uncle had a new ’62 two door hardtop, I had my first ride in a car with AC in my folk’s friend’s 98 and two of our neighbors had 88 sedans.
Yep, the ’62 Olds brings back some real nice memories to me. I wouldn’t mind having one now, but it would have to be a wagon, even though that is not my type of car.

Grateful to see stuff from 5 years ago recycled, if you wanna see other ’62 Chryslers rolling around the streets of Oakland, feel free to at my site, now entering its 2nd year. Feel free to subscribe as well, I’ll be trying to have 1-2 posts new a week:

I would be really conflicted. I have 2 of these cars in my early 70’s childhood. My dad had a black w/ red interior 62 Olds 88 4dr hardtop and the lady that drove me to Sunday school had a matching 62 Chrysler 4dr hardtop. we didn’t have the Olds long as it was wrecked in an accident but I remember it felt like a “classy” car compared to the Chrysler. and this is coming from a dedicated mopar fan. but the Chrysler had that wonderful looney tunes dash, especially at night! decisions, decisions.
I guess if I am responsible for long term care and feeding I would have to go with the Olds, as at roughly the decade mark, the Olds had minor rust and barring the accident would have had a few years of life left in it but the Chrysler was retired not long after due to terminal rust.

When I wrote my post above I forgot about my younger brother’s car. When he started driving in 1974 Dad bought him a junky ’65 Corvair which lasted about a year. Then, my uncle died and Dad bought his nice ’62 Newport four door from my aunt and gave it to my brother. That was a real nice car. My brother told me that girls really liked the weird instrument cluster and it was a good conversation starter.

For me, who came along far too late to have personal memories of any of these cars, it’s a pretty easy decision for the Chrysler. I actually like the oddball canted-lamp nose, and it pairs remarkably well with the finless tail (especially considering in ’61 it was one of the last large-fin holdouts). When compared with the clearly superior engines, handling, and that electroluminescent dash, the choice is clear.

Runner-up between the Buick and the Olds is a harder call, especially since both of them changed so much for the worse compared to the very attractive ’61 models in both lineups. I think I’d probably take the Olds, double chin and all, if I could squeeze a Starfire in under $3500; if not, then the Buick. I’d take a Bonneville over either without having to think it over though.

It’s fair to say that the slight upturn in Chrysler sales for 62 was due to dropping every other full-size car from their lines exc Imperial. Chrysler discontinued or shrank Desoto, Plymouth, and two sizes of Dodges, although the biggest Dodge returned later in the year.

The only full size cars I really find especially attractive from 1962 were the Lincoln Continentals and the Cadillacs. The mopars were all still a bit goofy, Fords and Mercuries both blocky, the Buicks and Old’s lacking the style of the earlier cars and the elegance of later ones. The Pontiacs and Chevies had clean lines at least, with no better example than the grand prix thanks to the less chrome.